Contact Us Now

 

News & Media

Please contact press@randazza.com for press related inquiries.

I recently wrote a posting about the Murphy v. Boston Herald case, in which Reporter David Wedge found himself on the wrong side of a defamation case. At the time, I was very persuaded by the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision and findings of fact. Who wouldn't be? ...

04 June, 2007 /
I wish that I had the requisite volume of creative juices to make this stuff up. CNN reports:
A math teacher whose name is used in a student film featuring an evil teddy bear that orders other stuffed animals to kill a teacher is suing the four children who made it, alleging it defamed him. Daniel Clevenger's lawsuit, filed May 16 in Henry Superior Court, is the second round of legal action related to the 78-minute film "The Teddy Bear Master."
Go ahead. Read that again. Yep, The Teddy Bear Master has spawned not one, but two lawsuits.
03 June, 2007 /
Found this story on Likelihood of Confusion (highly recommended blog, by the way). The Democratic National Committee has a pretty good horse in the contest for most ill-considered demand letter of the year. His entry is here. Here is the post he is complaining about. I didn't need to get more than one sentence into it before I was able to tell that it has as much credibility as George W. Bush. In a nutshell (in pertinent part): 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1) provides that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” That means that you can't sue the Free Republic for something a member posted on that site. Forgot about New York Times v. Sullivan? Okay, I can live with that. (No, I really can't, but I believe in forgiveness). Good luck suing a political website for defaming a political party. But how can anyone have such poor judgment that they would send this dreck? While you read this, do that Carlos Mencia doo doo dooo sound. (I have seen worse demand letters, so, the DNC will not be winning the gold medal this year, but he's likely to have a strong showing for the Silver!).
30 May, 2007 /

A lesson in practicing with civility. Beyond the letter and purpose of the legal standards, conscientious judges and attorneys attempt to implement our litigation system with reasonable efficiency, civility, and common sense. This episode illustrates an egregious breach of those professional and cultural values. Counsel for Perrina...

29 May, 2007 /

This is the most amazingly shady thing I've ever seen lawyers do. A pox on Foley Hoag. On the dark side are: Gary Crossen, an attorney with Foley, Hoag & Eliot (who hilariously served as ethics counsel to two of Massachusetts' former Republican governors), Richard Donahue ("a former President of...

29 May, 2007 /

In one of the most foolish (but not the MOST foolish) trademark maneuvers I've ever seen, the NFL was seeking to trademark "The Big Game." Article here. Jeffrey Standen, a professor of Sports Law at Willamette University blogged about it here, where we also had a nice discussion about the...

29 May, 2007 /

I still don't think I would vote for him, but I can't help but shake this feeling that there might actually be a Republican presidential candidate who isn't a fascist. More importantly, it seems that the mainstream media is trying to stuff the Ron Paul candidacy, but some of...

29 May, 2007 /
One does not need to be too close to me to know my opinion about defamation actions. Most of these cases are frivolous, unfounded, and the result of a plaintiff abusing the legal system (and a lawyer ignoring his professional responsibilities). Some free speech absolutists go even further than I do and advocate the complete abolition of the torts of libel and slander as being inconsistent with the First Amendment, no matter how well founded the case may be.
"The First Amendment is clear about robust protection of freedom of expression," said [First Amendment attorney] Jon Katz. "I do not see any way the First Amendment can go uninjured if libel and defamation suits are allowed. "Fortunately, the courts have set high hurdles."
This is probably the only legal issue that Katz and I would quibble over. I do agree that the First Amendment may very well prohibit libel suits by public officials or public figures. However, I also believe that when a private citizen is defamed, and that defamation causes real, articulable, and demonstrable damage, perhaps the case could be meritorious.
27 May, 2007 /
As promised in this earlier post on Related Group v. Stranahan House, I have reviewed the complaint in this matter. My conclusion? Garbage. There are some points in the complaint, that (if true) might theoretically support a cause of action, but they are few and far between. Finding bits of merit in this complaint to say it is a proper lawsuit is like picking undigested corn out of feces in order to find nutrition. Theoretically possible, but I'd rather starve.
27 May, 2007 /